Riemann on Deductive vs Creative Reasoning

In summary: However, if a conjecture is proved, it is then called a theorem.Riemann, in fact, assumed certain hypotheses without any formal proof. The example I am thinking of is the Dirichlet principle which mathematically says that there is always a harmonic function in the interior of a region that has prescribed boundary values. He believed this because of examples from Physics. For instance, the Dirichlet principle would predict that if one heats up a metal plate all the time keeping the temperature on its edge constant, then a static equilibrium temperature throughout the entire plate will be reached. Finding the theorem in this case would be fomulating the temperature experiment as a statement about harmonic functions. Further evidence for the principle came from the experimental creation
  • #1
paalfis
69
2
I understand that Riemann was very shy, so he didn't talk much. Something that he said was:

'If only I had the theorems! Then I should find the proofs easily enough' .

What do you think meant by that? I suspect he was comparing deductive reasoning (proofs) with imagination and the 'seeing over the walls'-kind of reasoning that is needed for creating theorems when facing new problems.
 
  • Like
Likes lavinia
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
paalfis said:
I understand that Riemann was very shy, so he didn't talk much. Something that he said was:

'If only I had the theorems! Then I should find the proofs easily enough' .

What do you think meant by that? I suspect he was comparing deductive reasoning (proofs) with imagination and the 'seeing over the walls'-kind of reasoning that is needed for creating theorems when facing new problems.
Or maybe he was speaking literally and not figuratively -- that he didn't have the imagination to think up new theorems, but he did have the abilities to prove theorems that others posed.
 
  • #3
paalfis said:
I understand that Riemann was very shy, so he didn't talk much. Something that he said was:

'If only I had the theorems! Then I should find the proofs easily enough' .

What do you think meant by that? I suspect he was comparing deductive reasoning (proofs) with imagination and the 'seeing over the walls'-kind of reasoning that is needed for creating theorems when facing new problems.

I think you are correct. Like all scientists, mathematicians form hypotheses - in their case these come from observation of mathematical objects and are inspired by observation of the so called "real word". They are looking for hypotheses that are in fact theorems. The proofs are secondary and verify the hypothesis. It seems that Riemann meant that you need to know what is true,the theorem, before you prove it.

Riemann, in fact, assumed certain hypotheses without any formal proof. The example I am thinking of is the Dirichlet principle which mathematically says that there is always a harmonic function in the interior of a region that has prescribed boundary values. He believed this because of examples from Physics. For instance, the Dirichlet principle would predict that if one heats up a metal plate all the time keeping the temperature on its edge constant, then a static equilibrium temperature throughout the entire plate will be reached. Finding the theorem in this case would be fomulating the temperature experiment as a statement about harmonic functions. Further evidence for the principle came from the experimental creation of static electric fields. There is a cool section in Feynmann's Lectures Book2 where he shows experimental setups that create harmonic functions with given boundary values.

As is turns out, the Dirichlet principle is false but it is true in enough cases to enrich mathematical theory.

Throughout the history of Mathematics, Physical laws have suggested theorems. Finding those laws then formulating them as mathematical theorems (and theories) is the key step. The proof is last.

Riemann was able to prove many of his hypotheses but at least one defies proof even today. That is the Riemann Hypothesis. Search for a proof has led to much new mathematics.

In mathematics itself, all Physics aside,hypotheses are formed based on observation of mathematical objects. These hypotheses are called conjectures and may or may not be theorems. The important conjectures, lead to new ideas and new research even when they are not known to be true.
 
Last edited:

1. What is the difference between deductive and creative reasoning according to Riemann?

Deductive reasoning involves using logical deductions from given premises to arrive at a conclusion, while creative reasoning involves using intuition and imagination to come up with new ideas and solutions.

2. How did Riemann view the role of deductive and creative reasoning in scientific discovery?

Riemann believed that both types of reasoning were important for scientific discovery. Deductive reasoning helps to establish a solid foundation for knowledge, while creative reasoning allows for new discoveries and breakthroughs.

3. Can deductive and creative reasoning be applied to different fields of science?

Yes, both types of reasoning can be applied to various fields of science. Deductive reasoning is commonly used in mathematics and formal sciences, while creative reasoning is often used in fields such as physics, biology, and psychology.

4. Are deductive and creative reasoning mutually exclusive?

No, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they often work hand in hand in the scientific process. Deductive reasoning can help to generate hypotheses, while creative reasoning can be used to test and refine these hypotheses.

5. How can scientists cultivate both deductive and creative reasoning skills?

Scientists can cultivate deductive reasoning skills by studying logic and practicing problem-solving using formal methods. Creative reasoning skills can be developed through activities such as brainstorming, experimentation, and open-mindedness.

Similar threads

  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
890
  • Beyond the Standard Models
2
Replies
41
Views
12K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
6K
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
7
Replies
226
Views
18K
Back
Top